DOCSLIB.ORG

Folder No. 180.2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Folder No. 180.2 2.081FOLDER NO. ALASKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Legislative Reference Library Juneau, Alaska CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES PREPARED ON BEHALF OF THE ALASKA STATEHOOD COMMITTEE FOR THE ALASKA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION £:.‘ :>>*. ....-'. A-* J; . t,| . , ' ■ J ■: jr; ' < p V sLT'j: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SERVICE -V CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES Prepared on behalf of the ALASKA STATEHOOD COMMITTEE for the ALASKA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Convened November 8 , 1955 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SERVICE Volume 2 of 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 I. The State Constitution within the American Political System II. Civil Rights and Liberties III. The Alaskan Constitution, and the State Patrimony IV. Suffrage and Elections VOLUME 2 V. The Legislative Department VI. The Executive Department VII. The Judicial Department VOLUME 3 VIII. The Constitution and Local Government IX. State Finance X. Legislative Structure and Apportionment XI. Constitutional Amendment and Revision XII. Initiative, Referendum, and Recall V THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT A staff paper prepared by Public Administration Service for the Delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention November, 1955 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Legislative Department 1 State Legislative Powers 2 Major Areas of State Activity and Power 3 Legislative Powers Relating to the Executive and Judiciary 4 Limitations Imposed on Legislative Action 5 Limitations against Special and Local Legislation 6 Qualifications, Election, and Tenure of Legislators 10 Qualifications 11 Age Requirements 11 Citizenship and Residence Requirements 12 Election and Terms of Members 12 Judging Qualifications and FillingVacancies 14 Compensation of Legislators 16 Privileges and Immunities 17 Dual Office Holding 19 Legislative Organization and Procedure 20 Sessions 20 Officers and Rules 24 Committees 24 Quorum 26 Style Limitations 27 Procedural Limitations 2S Legislative Services 32 Lobbying 36 General Comments 37 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT State Government in the United States is uniquely an American product. Although the states represent wide variations in size, condition and other factors, they share in common a status which might be called "constitutional middlemen." In the formation of our Federal Union the states consented to strip themselves of certain powers which were delegated to the national government. The remaining powers, variously termed reserved or residual powers, were retained by the individual states. But within the states, the ultimate repositories of political power are the people. This constitutional belief of popular sovereignty when coupled with its companion doctrine of limited government, or the belief that certain powers and activities should be denied to government and government officials, led to the formulation of state constitutions which are essentially limitations on power. Indeed, a student of comparative government reading American state constitutions for the first time would find little in their legislative articles about the specific powers of state government in contrast to the multiplicity of limitations, pro­ hibitions, and elaborate prescriptions governing conduct, pro­ cedures, and other details. State Legislative Powers As mentioned above, the lawmaking powers of state legis­ latures are restricted by certain powers given to the federal government. Article I of the Federal Constitution assigns cer­ tain functions to the federal government and definitely pro­ hibits them to the states. Among the acts prohibited are the making of treaties, the granting of letters of marque and repri­ sal and the passing of bills of attainder, the coining of money, the passing of ex post facto laws, the making of anything but gold and silver legal tender for the payment of debts, the pass­ ing of laws impairing the obligation of contract, the granting of titles of nobility, the levying of tonnage or export duties, and finally, engaging in war or keeping troops or ships of war in time of peace. Even when dealing with a subject which comes within the scope of their constitutional authority, the state legislatures are restricted in the exercise of their power by important provisions of Amendment XIV; namely, those clauses which guarantee due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and the privileges and immunities of citizens. Of course the legislature is also subject to 3uch inter­ pretations of the Federal Constitution and the constitution of the state as the courts may choose to give them. In addition to the normal hazards of judicial review, some state legislatures are confronted with the special doctrine of implied limitations which has been designed by the courts to limit legislative powers by narrow interpretations of delegated powers. Theoretically, the legislature should be entitled to exercise those powers not denied to it by either the Federal or the state constitution; but when the expressed constitutional restrictions are reinforced by this narrow doctrine of interpretation, the lav/making body is in a straitjacket.1 Major Areas of State Activity and Power Within the framework of the federal system and limitations imposed by state constitutions, the states undertake a wide var­ iety of services— each of which from time to time, requires legislative deliberation and action. In most state constitutions a brief section stipulating that the legislative authority of the state is vested in the legislature has been sufficient to endow it with power to act in a wide variety of fields. These may be generally classified as follows; 1. Educations public school systems, institutions of special training and higher learning, and library services. 2. Highways, highway safety, and aviation. 1 In Rathbone v. Wirth, 45 N. W. 15, 23 (1896) the Court of Appeals of New York gave a classic statement of the objection­ able doctrine: "When the validity of legislation is brought in question, it is not necessary to show that it falls appropriately within some express written prohibition contained in the con­ stitution. The implied restraints of the constitution upon legislative power may be as effectual for its condemnation as the written words, and such restraints may be either in the language employed or in the evident purpose which was in view and the circumstances and historical events which led to the enactment of the particular provisions as a part of the organic law." 3 . Health and welfare programs. 4. Defense and public protection, including civil defense and state fire protection. 5. Corrections. including penal institutions and correctional systems. 6. Planning and development, including economic devel­ opment, housing and urban redevelopment. 7. Natural Resources, including conservation, admin­ istration and research services. 8. Labor and industrial relations, including employ­ ment security administration. 9. Regulatory activities, including occupational licensing, utility and insurance regulation, and al­ coholic beverage control. 10. Intergovernmental Relations, including inter­ state relations, state-federal relations, and local government structure and relations. In addition to these fields of activity, the state legisla­ ture exercises the taxing power and important controls over the expenditure of state funds. It also plays an important role in the field of suffrage and elections. Legislative Powers Relating to the Executive and Judiciary The legislature's powers end relationships with the execu­ tive and judicial branches are subject to some variations from state to state, yet these entail additional legislative tasks. On the judicial side, for example, the legislature must constant­ ly make judgments with regard to the constitutionality of measures before it in the light of current judicial interpretations. Im­ portant influences can be exercised over the executive or judiciary through such appointive or appointment-reviewing powers and impeachment authority as are assigned to the state legislature by the constitution. Probably the most significant legislative authority, particularly affecting the executive branch, is the power of the legislature through its committees to investigate any subject, department, o r agency as may be necessary for the proper performance of its duties in order to determine compliance with either constitutional or statutory requirements. Limitations Imposed on Legislative Action Because of the low level of public esteem to which state legislatures fell in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, legislative articles of state constitutions are predominantly limitations, restrictions and prohibitions which are imposed on that branch. Indeed, this trend has been carried as far as the development of devices whereby the people reserve the power 'go initiate as well as to review legislation thereby further delimiting or dividing legislative authority. The problem of what, restrictions on the exercise of legis­ lative authority should be embodied in the state constitution raises an important question about the relation oflthe constitu­ tion to progress. If, on the one hand, the restrictions are highly specific and well defined, there is always the danger that they may rapidly become out-moded and develop into barriers 6 to necessary reform. This is well illustrated, for example, by state constitutional restrictions upon the power to tax. How­ ever, there are also difficulties attendant upon the effort to express limitations in broad and general terms. In the first place, it is the difficulty of uncertainty which leaves the legislative body more or less without guidance as to what it may or may
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mcosca ~ Conft
    2013-2014 Policy Paper Four Essential Elements Required to Deliver Justice in Limited Jurisdiction Courts in the 21st Century mcoscA ~ Conft-. n.: ncc ofSia iC Court r\dministrawrs Conference of State Court Administrators Author Arthur W. Pepin, Director New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts A special thanks to Steve Canterbury, Administrative Director of the Courts, West Virginia, for editing the paper. COSCA Policy and Liaison Committee Arthur W. Pepin, Chair Ms. Beth McLaughlin Director, New Mexico Administrative State Court Administrator, Montana Office of the Courts Jody Patel Gregory Linhares, Vice Chair Chief of Staff, Judicial Council of California State Court Administrator, Missouri John W. Smith Rosalyn Frierson Director, Administrative Office of the Director, Court Administration, South Courts, North Carolina Carolina Anne B. Wicks Elisabeth H. Goodner Executive Officer, District of Columbia State Court Administrator, Florida COSCA Policy and Liaison Committee Staff Pamela Harris State Court Administrator, Maryland Richard Y. Schauffler National Center for State Courts Lilia G. Judson Executive Director, Indiana Division of Shannon E. Roth Court Administration National Center for State Courts Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 I. A Brief History of Limited Jurisdiction Courts .................................................................................. 1 A. King's Justice and
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter VI, Executive Department
    A Comparative Analysis of the Michigan Constitution Volume I Article VI Citizens Research Council of Michigan 1526 David Stott Building 204 Bauch Building Detroit, 26, Michigan Lansing 23, Michigan Report Number 208 October 1961 Citizens Research Council of Michigan TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER VI EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Page A. State Officers - Election and Term 1 B. General Powers of the Governor - Executive Organization 9 C. The Governor’s Power of Appointment and Removal 22 1. Power of Appointment 22 2. Power of Removal 27 D. Civil Service Commission 32 E. The Governor’s Relations with the Legislature 41 1. Messages to the Legislature 41 2. Writs of Election for Legislative Vacancies 42 3. Convening Special Legislative Session 43 4. Convening Legislature Elsewhere Than at State Capital 45 5. Gubernatorial Veto 46 6. Item Veto 53 F. Other Powers of the Governor 56 1. Military Powers 56 2. Reprieves, Commutations and Pardons 58 3. Use of the Great Seal 62 VI Executive Department 4. Issuance of Commissions 63 G. Eligibility, Lieutenant Governor, Succession and Other Provisions 65 1. Eligibility to Office of Governor 65 2. Prohibition of Dual Office Holding and Legislative Appointment 66 3. Lieutenant Governor 68 4. Devolution of the Governor’s Powers upon Lieutenant Governor 72 5. Succession Beyond Lieutenant Governor 76 6. Compensation of State Officers 78 7. Boards of State Auditors, Escheats and Fund Commission 80 (See over for Section detail) Page Article VI, Section 1 ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bar Bulletin
    University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series Volume 18 March 1920 Article 4 1920 Bar Bulletin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bar Bulletin, 18 Bulletin Law Series. (1920) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls/vol18/iss1/4 This Bar Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BAR BULLETIN 'Editor .................................................................................... K ENNETH C. SEARS Associate Editor for Bar Association .................................... W. 0. THOMAS OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE MISSOURI BAR ASSOCIATION Officers Of Association President .................................................................. ROBERT LAMAR, HOUSTON ist. Vice-President .................. C. W. GERMAN, KANSAS CITY 2nd. Vice-President ... ............. A. A. WHITsIrr, HARRISONVILLE 3rd. Vice-President ................................................ G. M. SEBREE, SPRINGFIELD Secretary ........................................................ C. H. SKINKER, JR., SPRINGVItLD Assistant Secretary ........................................ EDwAR W. L.AKX, ST. Louis Treasurer ...................... DELL D. DUTTON, COMMERCE BLDG., KANSAS CITY Trial by jury is becoming an increasingly expensive luxury.-AuSTIN W. SCOTT, Harvard Law School, 33 H. L. R. 245. We have no degrees of negligence in Missouri, so far as the right to recover for negligence is concerned. We are confining our remarks to the case in hand, and to the statute under which it is brought.-GRAVES, J., in State ex rel v. Ellison, 213 S. W. 1. c. 461. But why so cautious? DILEMMA OF TRIAL COURTS.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Courts Side with Employees Against the Eighth Circuit
    Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2011 Issue 2 Article 9 2011 Missouri Courts Side with Employees against the Eighth Circuit: Continued Employment Does Not Constitute Acceptance and Consideration for Mandatory Arbitration Agreements: Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet Cadillac Laura Browne Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Laura Browne, Missouri Courts Side with Employees against the Eighth Circuit: Continued Employment Does Not Constitute Acceptance and Consideration for Mandatory Arbitration Agreements: Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet Cadillac, 2011 J. Disp. Resol. (2011) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2011/iss2/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Browne: Browne: Missouri Courts Side with Employees Missouri Courts Side with Employees Against the Eighth Circuit: Continued Employment Does Not Constitute Acceptance and Consideration for Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet CadillacI I. INTRODUCTION The question of whether continued employment constitutes acceptance and consideration for an employment contract, particularly applied to mandatory arbi- tration clauses, has split the authorities who decide on cases arising out of Mis- souri. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, while purporting to apply Missouri law in cases arising out of Missouri, holds that an employee who continues to work for his or her employer after an arbitration program has been implemented is bound by it by the virtue of his or her continued employ- ment.2 Missouri courts, however, disagree with this interpretation of Missouri law and held in Frye v.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of 09LPHB Initiative Application A.G
    October 22, 2009 The Honorable Craig E. Campbell Lieutenant Governor P.O. Box 110015 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0015 Re: Review of 09LPHB Initiative Application A.G. File No: JU2009-200-798 Dear Lieutenant Governor Campbell: You have asked us to review an application for an initiative entitled “An Act recognizing the legal personhood of all human beings including unborn children.” In brief, while we conclude there may be legal issues with the bill, it is not clearly unconstitutional. Therefore, we recommend that you certify the application. Consideration of legal issues that do not rise to the level of “clearly unconstitutional” must be deferred until after the election. Alaskans for Efficient Government, Inc. v. State, 153 P.3d 296, 298 (Alaska 2007). Our detailed analysis follows. I. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED BILL The bill provides: That all human beings, from the beginning of their biological development as human organisms, including the single-cell embryo, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, condition of dependency or method of reproduction, shall be recognized as legal persons in the state of Alaska. II. ANALYSIS Under AS 15.45.070, the lieutenant governor is required to review an application for a proposed initiative and either “certify it or notify the initiative committee of the grounds for denial” within 60 days of receipt. The grounds for denial of an application Hon. Craig E. Campbell October 22, 2009 A.G. File No: JU2009-200-798 Page 2 are that (1) the proposed bill is not in the required form; (2) the application is not substantially in the required form; or (3) there is an insufficient number of qualified sponsors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Source of Authority for Rules of Court Affecting Procedure
    Washington University Law Review Volume 22 Issue 4 January 1937 The Source of Authority for Rules of Court Affecting Procedure Tyrrell Williams Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Tyrrell Williams, The Source of Authority for Rules of Court Affecting Procedure, 22 WASH. U. L. Q. 459 (1937). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol22/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY Volume XXII JUNE, 1937 Number 4 THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY FOR RULES OF COURT AFFECTING PROCEDURE TYRRELL WILLIAMSt This article is divided into sections as here indicated. Section 1: The Scope of This Article. Section 2: What Is Procedure? Section 3: What Are Rules of Court? Section 4: The Different Functions of the Judiciary under a Typical American State Con- stitution. Section 5: The Doctrine of Inherent Judicial Power over Matters Ancillary to the Administration of Justice, but Concurrent with Non-Frustrating Legislative Power. Section 6: Certain Doctrines at Variance with the Doctrine Presented in Section 5. Section 7: The Doctrine of Legislative Supremacy in the Field of Procedure. Section 8: Constitutional Limitations on the Doctrine of Legislative Supremacy. Section 9: The Doctrine of Inherent and Exclusive Judicial Rule-Making Power in the Field of Procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Missouri Law in the Troubled Area of Child Custody, The
    Missouri Law Review Volume 27 Issue 3 June 1962 Article 5 1962 Status of the Missouri Law in the Troubled Area of Child Custody, The Joseph W. Lewis Gerald Tockman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph W. Lewis and Gerald Tockman, Status of the Missouri Law in the Troubled Area of Child Custody, The , 27 MO. L. REV. (1962) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol27/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lewis and Tockman: Lewis: Status of the Missouri Law in the Troubled Area of Child Custody THE STATUS OF THE MISSOURI LAW IN THE TROUBLED AREA OF CHILD CUSTODY JOSEPH W. LEwis* AND GERALD TocMAN** The basic principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount con- sideration in judicial determinations of the right to custody has been so universally proclaimed by all courts of Missouri and by the other courts of the land, both federal and state, that the doctrine has indeed become a judicial truism with which no courts take issue. The layman and, indeed, the lawyer unfamiliar with child custody problems might be refreshed to know that here at least is one area of the law where a simple, noble, human precept will guide the courts in resolving the problems presented to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard of Reliability for Declarations Against Penal Interest in Missouri, The
    Missouri Law Review Volume 48 Issue 3 Summer 1983 Article 9 Summer 1983 Standard of Reliability for Declarations against Penal Interest in Missouri, The Kay Willenbrink Van Pelt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kay Willenbrink Van Pelt, Standard of Reliability for Declarations against Penal Interest in Missouri, The, 48 MO. L. REV. (1983) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol48/iss3/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Van Pelt: Van Pelt: Standard of Reliability for Declarations against Penal Interest THE STANDARD OF RELIABILITY FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST IN MISSOURI State v. Turner' While declarations against pecuniary and proprietary interests have traditionally been regarded as exceptions to the hearsay rule,2 courts have considered declarations against penal interest less trustworthy and have generally refused to admit them.3 The traditional justification is that recog- nition of the penal interest exception would encourage a criminal defendant to induce a third party to give a false confession.4 The United States Supreme Court first decided not to admit declara- tions against penal interest in Donnelly v. United States.' The propriety of excluding such evidence has since been complicated by the Court's decision in Chambers v.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska's Independent Approach to State Constitutional Interpretation
    ARTICLES Welcome to the "Last Frontier," Professor Gardner: Alaska's Independent Approach to State Constitutional Interpretation RONALD L. NELSON* This article rebuts recent criticism of efforts by state supreme courts to interpret state constitutionalprovisions differently than the United States Supreme Court interprets analogous provisions in the United States Constitution. This area of law, sometimes called New JudicialFederalism, has been the subject of consider- able comment over the last twenty years. By focusing on equal protection, privacy, religious freedom and access to natural resources, the article examines Alaska's unique constitutional background and independent interpretation. This analysis of Alaskan constitutionalrights reveals a viable and active brand of New Judicial Federalism. The article concludes that Alaska's independent approachto state constitutionallaw is an example of a constitutionaldiscourse that is both uniquely local and national- ly valuable. I. INTRODUCTION There where the mighty mountains bare their fangs unto the moon, There where the sullen sun-dogs glare in the Copyright © 1995 by Alaska Law Review * Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, Alaska, 1986-1991; J.D., University of Miami (Florida) School of Law, 1979; M.A., New School for Social Research (New York), 1986; B.S., Texas A&M University, 1972. Mr. Nelson is currently pursuing a doctorate in government at the University of Texas at Austin. ALASKA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 12:1 snow-bright, bitter noon, And the glacier-gutted streams sweep down at the clarion call of June. There where the livid tundras keep their tryst with the tranquil snows; There where the silences are spawned, and the light of hell-fire flows Into the bowl of the midnight sky, violet, amber and rose.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Iii Legislative Department
    ARTICLE III LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Sec. 1. SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Legislative power of this State shall be vested in a Senate and House of Representatives, which together shall be styled "The Legislature of the State of Texas." History The present language has been unchanged since 1876 and closely resembles that contained in the Constitution of 1836. The only significant difference between the two is the name given to the senate and house of representatives. The Constitution of 1836 labeled these two bodies the "Congress of the Republic of Texas," whereas the present constitution of course describes them as "The Legislature of the State of Texas." Curiously, constitutions after 1836 changed "legislative power" to "legislative powers." The Constitution of 1869 restored the singular, however. From 1845 to 1876 the legislative power provision of each constitution contained the require- ment that "The Style of the laws shall be, 'Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas,' " a requirement now located in Section 29. Explanation Section 1 does three things: It vests the lawmaking power in the legislature, although by no means exclusively. It commits Texas to a two-house, or bicameral, legislature. It names each house or chamber of the legislature. The last provision is of little significance-some states call their lower houses "assemblies," a distinc- tion without a difference-but the issues of who may exercise the lawmaking power and bicameralism versus unicameralism are still vital. Legislative Power Other parts of the constitution itself make clear that the legislature is not the sole repository of lawmaking power.
    [Show full text]
  • MISSOURI: JUSTICE RATIONED an Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Juvenile Defense Representation in Delinquency Proceedings
    MISSOURI: JUSTICE RATIONED An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Juvenile Defense Representation in Delinquency Proceedings Spring 2013 National Juvenile Defender Center Central Juvenile Defender Center MISSOURI: JUSTICE RATIONED An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Juvenile Defense Representation in Delinquency Proceedings Written by: Mary Ann Scali Kim Tandy with Jaime Michel Jordan Pauluhn In collaboration with: Sarah Bergen Tim Curry Nadia Seeratan David Shapiro With assistance from: Rey Banks Angela Chang Emily Pelletier ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the juvenile defenders across Missouri who took time out of their busy schedules to meet with our assessment teams and share their experiences, successes, and challenges in representing indi- gent children in juvenile court. We would also like to thank the judges, legal of"cers, deputy juvenile of"cers, detention staff, administrators, and others across the state of Missouri who allowed us into their courtrooms and facilities, spoke candidly with us in interviews, and con"ded in us about their views of and experiences with juvenile indigent defense in their counties. We could not have conducted this assessment without the support and guidance of many, most notably, Cathy Kelly, Director of the Missouri State Public Defender Of"ce; Chief Justice Richard B. Teitelman, Missouri Su- preme Court; Judge William R. Price Jr., former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice; Judge Patricia Breck- enridge, Missouri Supreme Court; Tim Decker, Director of Missouri’s Division of Youth Services; Karen Kraft, Division Director, Missouri State Public Defender Of"ce; Patricia Harrison, Assistant Clinical Professor, St. Louis University School of Law; Mae Quinn, Professor and Co-Director of the Civil Justice Clinic, Washington University School of Law; and Kathryn Pierce, Clinical Attorney, Washington University School of Law’s Civil Justice Clinic.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Studies, Vol. 1
    11FOLDER NO. ALASKA legislative c o u n c i l Reference Library LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY POUCH Y-STATE CAPITOL JUNEAU. ALASKA 99801 CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES GOVERNOR'S OFFICE PREPARED ON BEHALF OF THE ALASKA STATEHOOD COMMITTEE FOR THE ALASKA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Volume I of 3. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SERVICE »"..S CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES I Prepared on behalf of the ALASKA STATEHOOD COMMITTEE for the f ALASKA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Convened November 8, 1955 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SERVICE Volume 1 of 3 I L it"-', m m * m i m ■ a n ■ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Hobart B. Atwood, Anchor*** Robert B. Atwood Cheirm sn W. L. Baker W. L. Baker, Kttchlkan Mr*. Mildred Hermann Vico Chairman V ictor C. Rivera Mra. Mildred Hermann, Juneau W a r n A. Taylor Secretary Alaska Statehood Committee too Bettlnnr, Kodiak ADDRESS: P.O. Box 153, JUNEAU, ALASKA Percy I pa look, KoUabue Thomaa B. Stewart SUnley J. McCutcheon, Anchorage Executive Officer Andrew Norland. Falrbanka Frank PeralroYlch, Klawock Victor C. Rlvara, Anchorage Women A. Taylor, Felrbenka K. L. Bnrtlatt, Delegate to Congreea It. Frank Helnulemen, Governor November 8, 1955 Honorable Delegates Alaska Constitutional Convention College, Alaska Ladies and Gentlemen: The Act of the Alaska Territorial Legislature creat­ ing the Alaska Statehood Committee (Chapter 10$, Session Laws of 1949) authorized and directed the Committee, among other things, to: "Have ready, in preparation for the Con­ stitutional Convention, fully detailed informa­ tion and analyses for use by the Convention in preparing the required draft of a constitution for Alaska, to the end that the people may have the opportunity of passing upon an entirely sound and thoroughly prepared document." On June 1, 1955, the Statehood Committee entered into a contract with Public Administration Service, a non­ profit organization devoted to providing research and con­ sulting services for governmental jurisdictions and agen­ cies, to make the necessary research and to provide reports for use by the Convention Delegates in their deliberations.
    [Show full text]